ReviewInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2018
Cardiologist and Diabetologist crosstalk in the era of cardiovascular outcome trials of novel glucose-lowering drugs.
Review in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diabetic cardiomyopathy: pathophysiology, imaging assessment and therapeutical strategies.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2024Review
- Treatment of obesity with liraglutide in cardiovascular prevention: Case series by the "ITACARE-P Light-Heart Lab" working group.International journal of cardiology. Cardiovascular risk and prevention · 2024Review
- Highlights from the International Journal of Cardiology Heart & Vasculature: Heart failure, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to increase and cardiovascular (CV) diseases remain the leading cause of death in diabetic patients. Diabetologists and Cardiologists have to work together in order to provide the best management to these patients. After years of disappointing studies showing no reduction of CV events with strict glycaemic control, some of the novel glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) seem to offer a new approach to tackle the problem, since the CV outcome trials (CVOTs-D) of liraglutide, semaglutide, empagliflozin and canagliflozin have demonstrated not only their CV safety but also their efficacy in the reduction of CV morbidity and mortality. Along with the initial enthusiasm, concerns have been raised about the economical sustainability of long-term therapies considering higher costs of new molecules relative to the traditional ones. As expenses in the medical field are on the rise, healthcare systems need to balance the positive impact of an intervention and its overall cost. This review is meant to offer the Cardiologists a different point of view on the positive influence of GLDs, in the light of the main trials in the CV fields they are familiar with. The purpose of this article is to critically review the magnitude of the CVOTs-D results by the analysis of their statistical determinants, to establish the extent of the GLDs positive impact on patients with both diabetes and CV disease. The analysis has been performed taking into account models and statistical determinants used in the main landmark cardiology trials. It is fundamental to translate the result of CVOTs-D in clinical practice: the interdisciplinary crosstalk between the Cardiologist and Diabetologist is of paramount importance in order to fully exploit the power of the new available pharmacological strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.